Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/23/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-11, and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zwirn (US 20150123782 A1) in view of Sahai et al. (US 20210027613 A1) and further in view of Chiarizio et al. (US 20160071402 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Zwirn teaches a computing device for monitoring detection and notification for event system failure (Zwirn, Fig. 2), comprising: a processor (Zwirn, Fig. 3, Processor 306); and a memory having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the processor (Zwirn, Para. 97, A computer includes a processor for performing actions in accordance with instructions and one or more memory devices for storing instructions and data), cause the processor to: receive an indication of an event detected by an event system installed in a facility (Zwirn, Para. 34, the control module 110 receives measurement information from one or more sensors 150 in order to determine if a trigger condition has been met (e.g., by determining if the measurements have met or exceeded a particular threshold); Para. 49, the supervisor module 120 applies an electric current to an outgoing wire leading to the notification devices, and an incoming wire from the notification devices provides a pathway for current to return to the supervisor module 120. In some cases, one of more of the notification devices 140a-d can be polarized, such that current can only flow in one direction through it. When the polarization of the current aligns with that of the notification device, current flows through the notification device and activates it. In response, the notification device generates a notification); determine a failure of a device of the event system while the event is occurring (Zwirn, Para. 57, when the electric current applied to an electric circuit is aligned with that of the notification devices (e.g., as shown in FIG. 2 for electric circuit 208b), electric current flows through those notification devices. Thus, electric current also returns to the supervisor module 120. However, if the electric circuit is damaged such that it cannot carry current properly (e.g., due to open or shorted wiring) or only intermittently carries current (e.g., if the conductive elements of the electric circuit provide an intermittent connection), the amount of current that returns of the supervisor module 120 will differ from the expected amount (e.g., zero returning current, or intermittently varying returning current). Thus, based on the electric current that returns from an electric circuit, the supervisor module 120 can determine if the electric circuit is functioning properly) based on a deviation from a logical operation of a fire panel of the event system causing a particular input to the fire panel not to lead to an expected output of the event system (Zwirn, Para. 48, The supervisor module 120 receives the trigger input from the control module 110, and selects one or more of the notification devices 140a-d to activate. When activated, the notification devices 140a-d generate a notification (e.g., an auditory and/or visual notification), informing the user of the condition; Para. 59, if the supervisor module 120 determines that an electric circuit 208a-b is performing abnormally (e.g., due to an absence of returning current or intermittently varying returning current)); and provide a notification of the failure of the device while the event is occurring (Zwirn, Para. 59, if the supervisor module 120 determines that an electric circuit 208a-b is performing abnormally (e.g., due to an absence of returning current or intermittently varying returning current), the supervisor module 120 can transmit a fault signal to the control module 110, indicating this abnormality. In response, the control module 110 can perform an appropriate action. For example, the control module 110 can notify the user of the failure or trouble condition using a display screen, an indicator light, and/or an audio speaker).
Zwirn does not specifically teach wherein the computing device is located remotely from the event system and the fire panel; cause the fire panel to attempt to re-activate the device; and provide a notification of the failure of the device while the event is occurring responsive to a failure of the re-activation.
However Sahai teaches wherein the computing device is located remotely from the event system and the fire panel (Sahai, Fig. 1, Para. 27, fire control system 100 can include a computing device 102. Computing device 102 can be located remotely from the facility or facilities allowing for a user to more easily monitor fire control panels 108-1, 108-2, . . . , 108-N).
Zwirn and Sahai are analogous art because they both pertain to monitoring fire control panels.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have remote monitoring of the fire panels (as taught by Sahai) resulting in predictable result of allowing for a user to remotely monitor the maintenance, inspections, and/or upgrades, among other operations, associated with fire control system (Para. 32).
Combination of Zwirn and Sahai do not teach cause the fire panel to attempt to re-activate the device; and provide a notification of the failure of the device while the event is occurring responsive to a failure of the re-activation.
However, the concept of attempting to re-activate before sending a failure notification is well known in the art. As also taught by Chiarizio. Chiarizio teaches all devices check in on a periodic interval based on their device type, device status, and their last check-in time. All timings are based on maximizing power savings and meeting operational and standards requirements. When an event such as tamper, alarm, or other monitored condition/event occurs, the event is transmitted immediately and the check in period clock is reset as per the status of the device and the device type, in order to save power. Whenever a slave device fails to get an acknowledgement from its master (e.g., control panel 12 or master repeater 16) despite retries, the device begins the process of listening for a new master that it can join. If the device fails to either re-join its original master or a new master within 200 seconds, the control panel 12 reports a test fail for that failed device, for all the devices joined to the failed device on its subnet, and for all the devices that are associated on any subnets attached to the subnet of the failed device (Para. 73).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have multiple attempt to rejoin before reporting device failure (as taught by Chiarizio) resulting in predictable result of providing efficient wireless monitoring and/or mass notification systems incorporating numerous advances in the art of wireless fire alarm technology.
In regard to claim 2, Combination of Zwirn, Sahai, and Chiarizio teach the computing device of claim 1, wherein the event is a fire (Zwirn, Para. 25, in response to a hazardous situations such as smoke, fire, or security breaches, an alarm system can notify users through auditory and/or visual warnings).
In regard to claim 4, Combination of Zwirn, Sahai, and Chiarizio teach the computing device of claim 1, wherein the device is an event device of the event system (Zwirn, Zwirn, Para. 67, the supervisor module 120 also monitors the integrity of each notification device 140a-d to determine if it functions correctly. This can be performed, for example, using an end of line resistor).
In regard to claim 5, Combination of Zwirn, Sahai, and Chiarizio teach the computing device of claim 1, wherein the instructions to provide the notification include instructions to provide the notification to an alert display associated with a manager of the facility (Zwirn, Para. 59, the control module 110 can notify the user of the failure or trouble condition using a display screen, an indicator light, and/or an audio speaker; Para. 77, the control module 110 can notify users and/or a remote monitoring station in different ways based on the severity of the problem, such that the intrusiveness of the alarm or trouble corresponds to the level of severity of the condition).
In regard to claim 6, Combination of Zwirn, Sahai, and Chiarizio teach the computing device of claim 1, wherein the instructions to provide the notification include instructions to provide the notification to a mobile device (Zwirn, Para. 35, The control module 110 can be configured to provide information to authorized day-to-day users (e.g., the residents of a structure), as well as to emergency responders (e.g., police officers and/or firefighters that were dispatched in response to an alarm notification)).
In regard to claim 7, Combination of Zwirn, Sahai, and Chiarizio teach the computing device of claim 1, wherein the instructions to provide the notification include instructions to provide the notification to a display of the fire panel of the facility (Zwirn, (Zwirn, Para. 35, the control module 110 can include a display device (e.g., a display screen, LCD display, and/or LEDs) that presents information regarding the operational parameters of the alarm system 100 (e.g., the power state of the alarm system, the alarm state of the alarm system, the specified trigger conditions, abnormalities, faults, and so forth). the control module 110 can function as a burglar and/or fire alarm control panel that allows a responder to be able to pinpoint and identify the location of the alarm event at the protected premises and/or utilize the provided information during an emergency situation).
In regard to claim 8, Combination of Zwirn, Sahai, and Chiarizio teach the computing device of claim 1, wherein the notification includes an indication of a location of the device (Zwirn, Para. 35, the control module 110 can function as a burglar and/or fire alarm control panel that allows a responder to be able to pinpoint and identify the location of the alarm event at the protected premises and/or utilize the provided information during an emergency situation; the control module 110 can include a display device (e.g., a display screen, LCD display, and/or LEDs) that presents information regarding the operational parameters of the alarm system 100 (e.g., the power state of the alarm system, the alarm state of the alarm system, the specified trigger conditions, abnormalities, faults, and so forth)).
In regard to claim 9, Combination of Zwirn, Sahai, and Chiarizio teach the computing device of claim 1, wherein the indication of the event is determined and provided by an event device (Zwirn, Para. 34, the control module 110 receives measurement information from one or more sensors 150 in order to determine if a trigger condition has been met (e.g., by determining if the measurements have met or exceeded a particular threshold). Example sensors 150 include devices such as carbon monoxide sensors, smoke detectors, temperature sensors, door sensors, and motion sensors that are positioned at various locations of a user's house. Each sensor 150 measures particular properties (e.g., a presence and/or concentration of carbon monoxide, a presence of smoke, a temperature, a presence of motion, and so forth), and transmits these measurements to the control module 110).
In regard to claim 10, Combination of Zwirn, Sahai, and Chiarizio teach the computing device of claim 1, wherein the indication of the event is a system event previously output by application logic (Zwirn, Para. 46, Based on the measurement data received from the sensors 150, the control module 110 determines if one or more trigger conditions are met. The control module 110 can consider different criteria in order to make this determination. For example, the control module 110 can determine if one or more of the received measurements falls outside of an acceptable range (e.g., if the measured concentration of carbon monoxide measurements exceeds a particular threshold concentration, if the measured amount of motion exceeds a particular threshold amount of motion, if the measured amount of smoke exceeds a particular threshold amount of smoke, and so forth)).
In regard to claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 1 as stated above.
In regard to claim 13, Combination of Zwirn, Sahai, and Chiarizio teach the medium of claim 11, wherein the failure of the portion of the event system corresponds to a network failure between the fire panel of the event system and an end device of the event system (Chiarizio, Para. 73, Whenever a slave device fails to get an acknowledgement from its master (e.g., control panel 12 or master repeater 16) despite retries, the device begins the process of listening for a new master that it can join. If the device fails to either re-join its original master or a new master within 200 seconds, the control panel 12 reports a test fail for that failed device, for all the devices joined to the failed device on its subnet, and for all the devices that are associated on any subnets attached to the subnet of the failed device).
In regard to claim 14, Combination of Zwirn, Sahai, and Chiarizio teach the medium of claim 11, wherein the failure of the portion of the event system corresponds to a failure of an end device of the event system (Zwirn, Zwirn, Para. 67, the supervisor module 120 also monitors the integrity of each notification device 140a-d to determine if it functions correctly. This can be performed, for example, using an end of line resistor).
In regard to claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 1 as stated above.
In regard to claim 16, Combination of Zwirn, Sahai, and Chiarizio teach the system of claim 15, wherein each of the plurality of event devices includes an activation sensor (Zwirn, Fig. 2, Supervisor module 120 with processor 306; Para. 87, if the electric circuits 208a-b are not intact, electric current applied to the electric circuits will not return to the signal generators 302a-b. Thus, by measuring the electric current that returns from the electric circuits 208a-b (e.g., using the signal generators 302a-b), the processor 306 can determine if one or more of the electric circuits are not intact, making them non-functional).
In regard to claim 17, Combination of Zwirn, Sahai, and Chiarizio teach the system of claim 16, wherein the computing device is configured to determine the failure of the portion of the event system responsive to a determination, made by an activation sensor of the event device, that the event device failed to activate during the event (Zwirn, Para. 41, In response, the supervisor module 120 activates the appropriate notification devices 140a-d in order to generate and emit the audible notification devices 140a-d. The supervisor module 120 also monitors each of the notification device 140a-d to determine if they are functioning correctly. If any abnormalities are detected within the notification devices 140a-d, the supervisor module 120 can transmit signals indicating these abnormalities to the control module 110).
In regard to claim 18, Combination of Zwirn, Sahai, and Chiarizio teach the system of claim 15, wherein the computing device is configured to assess a respective activation status of a plurality of logic components of the event system (Zwirn, Para. 41, In response, the supervisor module 120 activates the appropriate notification devices 140a-d in order to generate and emit the audible notification devices 140a-d. The supervisor module 120 also monitors each of the notification device 140a-d to determine if they are functioning correctly. If any abnormalities are detected within the notification devices 140a-d, the supervisor module 120 can transmit signals indicating these abnormalities to the control module 110).
In regard to claim 19, Combination of Zwirn, Sahai, and Chiarizio teach the system of claim 18, wherein the computing device is configured to compare the activation statuses with expected activation statuses based on cause and effect rules of the event system (Zwirn, Para. 57, the electric circuit is damaged such that it cannot carry current properly (e.g., due to open or shorted wiring) or only intermittently carries current (e.g., if the conductive elements of the electric circuit provide an intermittent connection), the amount of current that returns of the supervisor module 120 will differ from the expected amount (e.g., zero returning current, or intermittently varying returning current). Thus, based on the electric current that returns from an electric circuit, the supervisor module 120 can determine if the electric circuit is functioning properly).
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zwirn (US 20150123782 A1) in view of Sahai et al. (US 20210027613 A1) and Chiarizio et al. (US 20160071402 A1) and further in view of Kelly (US 20100238018 A1).
In regard to claim 3, Combination of Zwirn, Sahai, and Chiarizio teach the computing device of claim 1, wherein the device is the fire panel of the event system (Zwirn, Para. 35, the control module 110 can function as a burglar and/or fire alarm control panel that allows a responder to be able to pinpoint and identify the location of the alarm event at the protected premises and/or utilize the provided information during an emergency situation).
Combination of Zwirn, Sahai, and Chiarizio do teach wherein the failure of the device is associated with application logic of the fire panel.
However, Kelly teaches wherein the failure of the device is associated with application logic of the fire panel (Kelly, Para. 24, This configuration is installed such that changes and modifications to the "software" is conducted on the shadow copy and does not interfere with the operation of the system and provides continuous protection to the area of protection. The shadow backup and mirror software may be maintained utilizing any of the typical methods known in the art for maintaining dynamic mirror copies of software. The fire alarm control panel 101 thus has the capability of a fully redundant processor and control computer 112 and 115 that monitors the operating controller for fault or failure and automatically assumes all command and control functionality of the failed processor/controller and generates a fault signal to alert attending personnel of the failure and the assumption of system operations).
Zwirn, Sahai, Chiarizio, and Kelly are analogous art because they all pertain to fire alarm system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to monitor fire alarm control panel for fault (as taught by Kelly) in order to alert attending personnel of the failure.
In regard to claim 12, Combination of Zwirn, Sahai, Chiarizio, and Kelly teach the medium of claim 11, wherein the failure of the portion of the event system corresponds to a failure within the fire panel of the event system (Kelly, Para. 24, The fire alarm control panel 101 thus has the capability of a fully redundant processor and control computer 112 and 115 that monitors the operating controller for fault or failure and automatically assumes all command and control functionality of the failed processor/controller and generates a fault signal to alert attending personnel of the failure and the assumption of system operations).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zwirn (US 20150123782 A1) in view of Sahai et al. (US 20210027613 A1) and Chiarizio et al. (US 20160071402 A1) and further in view of Thomas et al. (US 20070219645 A1).
In regard to claim 20, Combination of Zwirn, Sahai, and Chiarizio teach the system of claim 15, wherein the plurality of event devices include: the fire panel (Zwirn, Para. 35, the control module 110 can function as a burglar and/or fire alarm control panel that allows a responder to be able to pinpoint and identify the location of the alarm event); smoke detectors (Zwirn, Para. 34, sensors 150 include devices such as carbon monoxide sensors, smoke detectors); heat detectors (Zwirn, Para. 34 and 36, Example sensors 150 include devices such as carbon monoxide sensors, smoke detectors, temperature sensors).
Combination of Zwirn, Sahai, and Chiarizio do not specifically teach emergency actuators; access control devices; and ventilators.
However, the concept of having emergency actuators, access control devices, and ventilators as part of the alarm system for a residential structure is well known in the art as also taught by Thomas. Thomas teaches wherein the plurality of event devices include: emergency actuators (Thomas, Para. 95, The actual building and its corresponding model 205 in display 200 and system 190 may incorporate appropriate sensors, indicators and actuators for emergency situations), access control devices (Thomas, Para. 94, Such integrated resources may include, for instance, HVAC building control information, access control systems, security systems, lighting systems, internal communications within the buildings), and ventilators (Thomas, Para. 94, Such integrated resources may include, for instance, HVAC building control information, access control systems, security systems, lighting systems, internal communications within the buildings).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have those devices (as taught by Thomas) resulting in predictable result of allowing a person to monitor various devices within a building.
Response to Arguments
Response to amended claims is considered above in claim Rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARMIN AKHTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9365. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta W Goins can be reached on (571) 272.2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHARMIN AKHTER/
Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights